Facebook discussion: CAUSE OF THE WAR

Anonymous said: “The primary issue (by far) around which the South wanted sovereignty was that of slavery. If the south didn’t want to preserve the abhorrent institution of slavery then they would have never seceded”

If you really believe that, you should say; “The primary reason the seven states seceded was slavery.”.

But you aren’t doing that here. You are saying that the War was fought over slavery. You’re not alone in this error, many people say the exact same thing. However, secession and the purpose for the war are two completely different topics.

And regardless of what anyone in this world says, secession is one peaceful remedy for tyranny. Every people have a right to throw off their governments and start over. Governments are created by the people. The people are not created by the governments. The people make the rules. It’s by the consent of the governed.

Every State in the Union is soverign. They have their own flag, they have their own people, their own governments, their own Constitutions. The States are merely joined to one another by compact, an agreement that they sign onto, that they agree to uphold. If the other members refuse to go along with that compact, the problem isn’t the States who are abiding by the compact, the problem are those who are violating it. The Northern states were violating the U.S. Constitution. If they couldn’t follow the Constitution perhaps they should have seceded?

The Seven Southern states didn’t leave the Union for no reason at all. There were violations and there were some shady practices taking place. Southern tax dollars being used to build Northern infrastructure was but one of the issues.

This idea that the South left the union because they wanted to keep their slaves is a bit simple. Why wouldn’t the South be able to keep their slaves? There was no amendment to end slavery. It wasn’t like someone proposed the current 13th amendment and it was on the verge of being ratified (Which is what should have happened if the North wanted to end slavery).

As I’ve pointed out too many times, the exact opposite is true, the Northern dominated congress proposed and passed an amendment to protect the institution of slavery. Some will argue that the Congress was doing everything it could to stop the South from leaving, hoping to win them back into the Union. But then that would of course mean that slavery was no issue at all.

And why didn’t the North want to end slavery in the United States? And why wouldn’t the North be happy that the South seceded and became their own Union? What’s to lose if the South leaves the Union? What’s the problem with the North? Wouldn’t 26 States be a big enough Union? I thought the union started with 11 and eventually 13? I had just assumed that more than 1 state could make up a union? When Pennsylvania joined Delaware, that’s the first United States, right? With all that in mind, It’s perplexing that 26 States weren’t enough to make a Union and Washington DC had to violently attack the Seven Southern states to “SAVE THE UNION”.

Inscribed in the Lincoln temple in Washington DC


The South knew that 7 States were more than enough for a Union. I believe South Carolina would have stood alone, outside of any union.
Look at Europe, how long did they go without a Union and now England is working on getting out of it – will England be able to exist without belonging to that Union?

It wasn’t just seven States that seceded, four more who didn’t want to secede immediately seceded when Lincoln pulled his Fort Sumter stunt. And more joined a little later on. Lincoln’s actions convinced the others that South Carolina was right. Lincoln and the republican party were tyrannical and had very bad intentions. And as each day went forward Lincoln’s tyrannical foolishness was manifested.

And listen to this creep tell the world that the South has nothing to worry about.

In his first Inaugural address (March 4, 1861), Abraham Lincoln said: “Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you.”

A month later he starts a War against the people of the Southern States. THE MOST AMPLE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY HAS ALL THE WHILE EXISTED …

What a snake! A conniving snake.

back to secession …

One of the reasons for secession was the Constitutional violations concerning slavery – I’ll gladly agree. It’s spelled out in South Carolina’s declaration of secession.
I will not and have no reason to believe that slavery had anything to do with the Northern invasion.

The North wasn’t filled with gullible people who would gladly run off and die while trying to kill Southerners. There were a good number of people who were speaking out against Lincoln and his war. Lincoln used the military to shut them down, scare the hell out of them, terrorize them. Lincoln illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus. A good number of the Maryland legislature were locked away in Fort McHenry. A U.S. Congressman was deported, 300 Northern News Papers shut down, tens of thousands of dissenters arrested – with no trial. Draft protestors were murdered in the streets of New York.

This idea that the North were fighting to free slaves isn’t any part of history, it is a myth, it’s revisionist history. And when you correct it, people will proclaim that you’re the neo-confederate revisionist. Like most everything in this world, it’s upside down.

Lincoln started the war and it had zero to do with slavery.

South Carolina seceded December 20, 1860. Lincoln pretended to not understand that States can leave the union any time they wish for whatever reason or no reason at all.

The States are soverign, Lincoln knew this, but acted as if he did not. You can see Lincoln’s understanding of the Declaration of Independence in his own words decades earlier. Like many men today who understand what the Constitution means, but conveniently don’t get the spirit of the law at the most opportune times.

Lincoln is a great example of a tyrant, someone who is hired on to bring down the hammer, tax the daylights out of everyone and force submission with violence. Lincoln lies, and connives, he is a seasoned conniver. Lincoln had been conniving his entire life. He was a lifelong politician, a party man, a party junkie, always loyal to his party, always trying to climb to the top.

Lincoln the conniver knew that violating the peace agreements and the armistice would force South Carolina to fire first. He forced the bombardment of Fort Sumter. I think it is safe to say that if any U.S. Army personnel would have been killed, Lincoln would have been even more pleased with the result. The U.S. Army were nothing but pawns for close to 4 months.

No one was killed, everyone was professional and cordial, U.S. Major Anderson and Confederate General Beauregard worked together at West Point (Beauregard was Anderson’s assistant artillery instructor). The South was doing everything in their power to avoid a war with a much larger population with far more resources. The surrender of Major Anderson and his men was on April 14, 1861. On the 15th, Lincoln’s proclamation for militia. Lincoln requested 75,000 militia from the several states. And in that proclamation he never mentioned “ending slavery”or “freeing slaves”. He mentioned taking Forts back.

He had zero intentions of peace. He wanted 7 States back under the boot of Washington DC and her bankers. Lincoln wasn’t hired on to reconcile anything. His plans to force a war preceded his inauguration.

A Lincoln apologist who is genuinely deluded might twist this to mean that Lincoln was using trickery to free slaves; that he did everything he had to do to get the North to fight to free slaves. They might say he tricked the North into freeing slaves. The Lincoln cultist might say that Saint Abraham Lincoln was so intelligent he manipulated the North into freeing slaves because God called him to do so. They see Lincoln as a holy man who can do no wrong.

To the cultist, when Lincoln violated the United States Constitution, it wasn’t bad, it was something that had to be done. If he ordered the death of some draft protestors, it was a hard but righteous decision, anything at any cost to free those poor slaves. When Sherman used scorched earth, God wanted that to happen, because Northerners and Lincoln were and are saints, and Southerners are evil and needed to be punished for their evil deeds. According to some Lincoln cultist, God used the righteous North to punish the evil South.

The people who wrote songs about John Brown (the mass murderer who was hung by the United States for treason) and sang of his righteous deeds, were unhinged, under a spell, delusional, mad, but happy in their herd.

We see the same things today. Look at the people who hate President Trump with a passion. They want him dead. Holding up his head with blood dripping off of it, they want him assassinated, wiped off the face of the earth, and his entire family as well. All of Hollywood, all of the mainstream media, Broadway, most blacks believe he is a racist, because the tv they watch tell them over and over and over again that Donald Trump is a white supremacist. No matter what Trumps entire life testifies too, he is labeled a white supremacist who hates anything that isn’t white. None of it is true, but look at the effects. People don’t care about truth, they care about jumping into the box car the television told them to jump into; they want to be in the same one their buddies are riding in. They don’t want to be separated from their herd.

Telling people the earth is going to burn up if the United States doesn’t agree to increase taxes and do something about green house gases. Meanwhile, the polar bear population is bigger than it’s been in 30 years, the polar caps are doing wonderfully, and Florida isn’t under water. BUT look at those global warmers, they swear we are all doomed – ONLY 12 years left and we will all be dead. And how they vehemently hate anyone who doesn’t fall for their stupidity. Do these people care about truth or are they just wanting to be in their herd?

In the end, the enemies of liberty are people who refuse the truth.

“if a nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilisation, it expects what never was & never will be. the functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty & property of their constituents. there is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves; nor can they be safe with them without information. where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe.”–Thomas Jefferson

Youtube Argument: “THE PhD”

Anonymous said:
The video you suggest is by some amateur lying Neo-Confederate hack, this video is by a PhD Historian with the full backing of his field. You might as well have linked to a video by a holocaust denier to deny that reality

My reply:
You believe a PhD Historian can only know the truth, and a man who isn’t a PhD can’t possibly know the truth? And here you are believing anyone with a degree – JUST LIKE the man with the PhD did. He believed everyone with a degree, and they believed everyone with a degree. Facts are facts. You have the entire world at your finger tips. Can you provide an argument against the content of the man who doesn’t have a PhD? Because I can tell you right now, I don’t have a degree of any sort and I can bury Mr. PhD in five minutes.

I have a book right here in front of me called, “Lincoln as he really was”, written by Dr. Charles T. Pace (Medical Doctor). Is my PhD better than your PhD? What about Thomas DiLorenzo, professor of economics at Loyola University? He wrote a book called, “The Real Lincoln” and “Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe”. Does his book count for much?

Colonel Seidule received a B.A. from Washington and Lee University, and an M.A. and Ph.D. in history from The Ohio State University. Is he smarter than the economist with a PhD? Is he smarter than the Medical doctor? Is he more capable of researching Abraham Lincoln and that thing we call the civil war? Perhaps Colonel Seidule isn’t as passionate about the subjects? Perhaps the Colonel goes with the official story – teaching at a U.S. military academy and all. It would be a little shocking for a West Point history professor to say President Lincoln caused the death of over 700,000 people for all the wrong reasons. See Walter Williams (Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University) piece, “Historical Ignorance”, for the details: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/07/walter-e-williams/the-war-of-1861/

I have all the confidence in the world that you can go out and research a subject you are passionate about and come up with a more accurate perspective on it than people with all sorts of letters next to their name.

I have a friend who is a PhD, I enjoy great conversations with him about many things, I’ve never assumed he was able to keep up with me because he has a PhD. He keeps up with me because we have the same interest, it has nothing to do with his college career. There are plenty of really dense PhD’s. I believe if you wanted to know this topic and be certain about it, you are very capable of doing so.

Sitting back and listening to someone regurgitate the official story isn’t going to help get you the facts. I don’t think that bothers you so long as nobody gives you a hard time about it. It bothered me because 752,000 Americans were killed; I wanted to know why. We lost 450,000 in World War II, plenty of people want to know why. The questions are very simple. #1 Was it a violation of the United States Constitution to own slaves? #2 Was it against the United States Constitution to secede? The answer to both of those questions is no. A good question at this point, “did they try to amend the United States Constitution to make it unlawful to own slaves?”. The answer to that question is no. Those are intelligent questions.

Here’s a strange question; did they (the Northern dominated congress) propose an amendment to guarantee the states that the United States congress would never interfere with the institution of slavery?. And the answer to that is yes, the Corwin amendment, passed both houses a month and a half prior to the beginning of the war.

The Corwin amendment: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.” March 1861

These are just a few of thousands of things to think about. My question to you is, how did a History Professor (an expert on the civil war) bypass the most obvious problems with his story? I’m getting my information from Lincoln’s first inaugural address. Also from Lincoln’s first inaugural address: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

Slavery was a State right

John Doe said: Well, the north did win, and the south did surrender. It was about states rights, and slavery was considered a states right.

Dear John : No doubt, slavery was a state right. Grant and others owned slaves. We should also take into consideration the number of slaves that were working in Washington DC at the time.

Did anyone propose an amendment to end slavery in 1840, 1850, 1860, 1861, 1862, 1863, 1864? Strange isn’t it? When you want to make changes to the United States Constitution you are supposed to propose an amendment.

Why was an amendment to end slavery ratified several months after the war was over? What I find even more bizarre is the Northern dominated United States congress proposed and passed an amendment to protect the institution of slavery in 1861, a month and a half before the war started.

They wrote and passed an amendment to protect the institution of slavery a month and a half before the war started and ratified an amendment to end slavery six months after the war ended.

And the war was about slavery?

That is very bizarre behavior for a people who wanted to put an end to slavery.

Is there anywhere in the United States Constitution or Declaration of Independence that instructs the members of the Union to go to war whenever they want to change something in the Constitution? From what I’ve read, there is an amendment process. I’m not aware of any other method. So how could you have a war over slavery when the only amendment proposed and passed was to protect the institution of slavery?

If the North wanted to end slavery why didn’t the North tell Washington DC to obey the United States Constitution and have the Northern dominated congress propose an amendment to end slavery?

John, the United States congress did the exact opposite, a month and a half before the war started, the Northern dominated congress proposed and passed an amendment to guarantee that the United States congress would never write an amendment to interfere with the institution of slavery. It was called the Corwin amendment and Abraham Lincoln loved it.

Here’s the Corwin amendment: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.” March 2, 1861 (side note: Maryland and Ohio signed the amendment, and in 2014 Maryland rescinded their signature.)

Here’s what Abraham Lincoln had to say about the Corwin amendment in his first inaugural address on March 4, 1861.

“I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution which amendment, however, I have not seen has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”–Abraham Lincoln, first inaugural address (March 4, 1861)

Here’s something else Lincoln said in that same March 4th address: “

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” Abraham Lincoln, first inaugural address

Lying Lincoln is admitting to the entire world that he does not have the lawful right to interfere with slavery and he has no inclination to do so. Please chew on that for a minute. On March 4th he is admitting that he has no authority to interfere with slavery, and he’s proclaiming to the world that he has no inclination to do so.

On April 15th his Proclamation for 75,000 militia from the several states has absolutely nothing to do with slavery.

If the war had nothing to do with slavery, what was it’s purpose?

Secession was lawful, it couldn’t have been about secession, right?

Slavery was legal and we know from the above facts that the war certainly wasn’t about slavery.

Secession has always been lawful in the United States. I don’t know how that could be a bad thing.

” That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. “ –From the Declaration of Independence

“We the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in
pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now
met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed
the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well
as the most deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon, –Do in the
name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known
that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the
people of the United States, may be resumed by them, whensoever the
same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every
power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will.”
–From the Virginia Convention, 1788


“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”